TEACHERS INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
DAVID AND MARY JO LOEB, RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Teachers Insurance Company seeks certiorari review of a trial court order requiring discovery of attorney-client privileged communications in a bad faith insurance action. The appellate court grants the petition in part, finding a limited waiver of privilege regarding communications about check payments but rejecting the trial court's finding of waiver regarding the decision to withdraw a fraud affirmative defense.
The court held that Teachers Insurance Company created a limited waiver of attorney-client privilege regarding communications about the payment of checks to Minute Men Construction, but did not waive privilege regarding the decision to withdraw the fraud affirmative defense. A client's mere general admission that a matter was discussed with counsel, without disclosure of specific communications, is insufficient to constitute a waiver of privilege.
[1] Disclosure of attorney-client communications regarding a specific matter constitutes a limited waiver of the privilege only as to communications on that same, specific ma…
[2] Testifying generally about facts that were the subject of consultation with an attorney does not waive the attorney-client privilege.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“When attorney-client communications are disclosed regarding a certain matter, there exists a limited waiver with respect to communications on the same, specific matter.”
Establishes the limited waiver doctrine applicable when a party discloses privileged communications about a specific issue
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTeachers Insurance Company and the Loebs were involved in a bad faith action under Florida Statutes section 624.155. During discovery, the Loebs moved…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Bad Faith Action cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner, Teachers Insurance Company, seeks certiorari review of an order of the trial court allowing Respondents, David and Mary Jo Loeb, to discover attorney-client privileged information in this bad faith action brought pursuant to section 624.155, Florida Statutes. We deny in part and grant in part the petition for writ of certiorari.
In this action, Respondents filed a motion to compel the discovery of certain attorney-client communications. The trial court granted the motion and found that Petitioner had waived the attorney-client privilege in regard to the payment of checks to Minute Men Construction and in regard to the basis of Petitioner withdrawing an affirmative defense of fraud and misrepresentation in the underlying breach of contract action. The trial court based its findings on the deposition testimony of Petitioner’s corporate representative, David Harkin. We agree that Mr. Harkin disclosed confidential communications about the payment of checks to Minute Men Construction during his deposition and that he created a limited waiver of the attorney-client privilege as to that issue. Coates v. Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., 940 So.2d 504, 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (“When attorney-client communications are disclosed regarding a certain matter, there exists a limited waiver with respect to communications on the same, specific matter.”)
However, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law when it found a waiver of the attorney-client privilege on the issue of the decision to withdraw the fraud affirmative defense. Mr. Harkin did not disclose any specific discussions with counsel as to this issue, and his admission that the issue was discussed with counsel is insufficient to support a waiver of the privilege. Id. at 511 (“The client does not waive the privilege by testifying generally in the case or testifying as to the facts that were the subject of the consultation with his or her attor*357ney....”) Moreover, Petitioner did not plead an affirmative defense of advice of counsel in this bad faith action and Petitioner’s counsel specifically stated on the record during Mr. Harkin’s deposition that Petitioner was not relying on such a defense. Petitioner did not waive the attorney-client privilege by merely defending against this lawsuit. Id. at 508.
The petition for certiorari in this case is granted in part, and the order is quashed to the extent that it requires the production of confidential information regarding the withdrawal of the affirmative defense. We otherwise deny the petition.
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
DAVIS, VAN NORTWICK, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Centennial Bank v. ServisFirst Bank Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2020)
Authorities Cited
- Coates v. Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., 940 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)